There was no grand Rose Garden announcement, no aides holding placards with lists of countries and tariffs imposed on them.

But four months after the United States Supreme Court struck down President Donald Trump’s use of an emergency powers law to wage a trade war on the world, his administration has relaunched his tariff agenda using a new approach that analysts say might be harder for courts to strike down.

The US Trade Representative (USTR) announced on June 2 that it was now pursuing Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 to once again impose tariffs on so-called “60 economies”. The list includes the European Union, so in effect, more than 80 countries are affected.

Using that authority, it has proposed tariffs of up to 12.5 percent on imports, arguing that those nations have failed to adequately prevent trade in goods produced with forced labour. Many of these countries are in the Global South. But several developed nations that are US allies – Britain, Canada, the European Union, Japan, Australia and New Zealand – are also among the targets of this new approach.

This renewed tariffs push, say analysts, might push countries further away from the US – and further incentivise them to seek trade deals with each other instead of relying on Washington.

“The US tariffs are … pushing countries to expand trade quicker,” Shantanu Singh and Vikram Naik, two India-based international trade lawyers in partnership, told Al Jazeera in a statement.

“The EU-Mercosur and EU-India trade deals are examples of that …. Though they might not offer the same scale or prices, opening trade with newer markets can help reduce the burden from US tariffs,” they added.

The EU-Mercosur deal that came into effect on May 1 between Europe and the South American bloc of Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay creates a trading zone of 700 million people. The EU-India trade agreement is even bigger: signed in January, and described by European leaders as the “mother of all deals”, it creates a free trade zone of two billion people.

The Trump administration’s previous and far broader tariff policy, enacted under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), was struck down by the Supreme Court in February. The court said that Trump exceeded his authority by invoking the IEEPA to impose the tariffs.

The day after, Trump imposed a global 10 percent temporary tariff, which is set to expire on July 24.

Section 301: A new workaround

Section 301 allows the US government to investigate foreign practices deemed “unjustifiable”, “unreasonable” or discriminatory towards American businesses and to impose remedies such as tariffs or import restrictions.

“The failure of our most important trading partners to address the importation of goods made with forced labour is unacceptable,” US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said. “It creates a dynamic where American workers are forced to compete globally on an unlevel playing field … We will no longer tolerate this disparity.”

The administration opened Section 301 investigations into 60 economies earlier this year, in March.

USTR concluded that, according to its investigations, each of the 60 economies failed to “effectively enforce a forced labour import prohibition”, which they further deemed was “unreasonable or discriminatory and burdens or restricts US commerce”.

The USTR has proposed an additional 10 percent tariff on imports from Argentina, Bangladesh, Cambodia, Canada, Ecuador, El Salvador, the European Union, Guatemala, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mexico, Pakistan, Taiwan and the United Kingdom, saying all of them already operate full or partial programmes.

For the remaining 45 countries investigated, the USTR said it intends to impose a higher surcharge of 12.5 percent. That list covers Australia, China, India, New Zealand, Nigeria, Japan, South Korea and Vietnam.

The USTR said interested parties can submit “written comments” on the proposed tariff measures by July 6, before “holding hearings” on July 7 to discuss the proposals.

Trade experts say the Trump administration’s renewed reliance on Section 301 investigations is aimed at rebuilding its negotiating power.

“After the US Supreme Court’s February 2026 ruling struck down the reciprocal tariffs, Washington lost much of its leverage in trade negotiations,” said Ajay Srivastava, founder of the India-based Global Trade Research Initiative (GTRI).

“Section 301 investigations now appear to be the new pressure tool – using the threat of additional tariffs to discourage countries from abandoning existing deals and to push others, including India, to conclude negotiations quickly.”

Moreover, the administration needed a more lasting legal foundation for its trade policy, Madeline Chalecki, assistant director at the Atlantic Council’s GeoEconomics Center, told Al Jazeera.

“It has been used to impose tariffs on China since 2018 under both the Trump and Biden administrations and was specifically designed to address foreign trade practices through tariff remedies.”

Unlike IEEPA, which gave the White House broad powers to act quickly, Section 301 requires investigations, public comment periods and formal determinations before tariffs can be imposed, she pointed out.

“The administration is essentially trading speed and discretion for durability and legal certainty,” Chalecki added.

‘Much harder to change’

India-based international trade lawyers Singh and Naik said while the approach could prove more durable than the reciprocal tariffs struck down by the courts, questions remain over the implementation of Section 301.

“Given precedent and the discretion given to the USTR by Congress, there is less risk of a legal challenge to the new tariffs,” they said.

“However, the speed and summary nature of the process has raised some concerns.”

Similarly, the Atlantic Council’s Chalecki said Section 301 tariffs are “much harder to change”. “Unlike IEEPA, tariff rates cannot be raised, lowered or suspended overnight by executive order. Any future changes require a legal record, public consultation and formal action,” she noted.

‘Unjustified’

Several of the economies targeted are already pushing back. The European Union has argued that it is implementing its own forced-labour import ban and questioned why it was included in the US proposal.

“The Commission will carefully analyse the preliminary findings of the investigation and will continue engaging with the US Administration. That said, the EU considers tariffs imposed on these grounds to be unjustified,” Olof Gill, deputy chief spokesperson for trade and economic security, said in a statement.

China’s foreign ministry spokesperson He Yongqian also denounced the move, accusing Washington of taking “unilateral restrictive measures” under the “pretext of ‘forced labour'”.

India has seemingly taken a more neutral approach as it continues to negotiate a trade deal with the US.

“India remains engaged with the US on the matter as a part of Section 301 proceedings. India is also parallelly engaged with the US for finalisation of a framework agreement as was announced on February 2, 2026,” the commerce ministry said.

Washington and New Delhi reached an understanding towards a trade agreement in February, but talks lost momentum after the US Supreme Court invalidated Trump’s tariff regime.

The global impact of these tariffs, if implemented, is likely to be limited, GTRI’s Srivastava said, since they target “a broad range of trading partners simultaneously”.

The larger effect, however, could fall on the US itself, he added. “More tariffs mean higher import costs, greater uncertainty for businesses, disrupted supply chains, and higher prices for American consumers and manufacturers,” Srivastava added.

Atlantic Council’s Chalecki echoed Srivastava, saying the tariffs under Section 301 “will not rock the global economy” any more than the IEEPA tariffs did, as trading partners were already familiar with high US tariffs.

However, Chalecki said the US move, if successful, could “accelerate the reorientation of global trade away” from the US.

“Businesses will shift supply chains and make different investment decisions, and we may see a rise in regional and sectoral trade agreements without large US presence,” she added.

Chalecki noted that governments are already adjusting their economic strategies and “expanding trade ties with alternative partners to reduce exposure to US uncertainty”.

“In my opinion, the global economic impact won’t come from the tariffs themselves, rather from the long-term consequences of protectionist US trade policy, which the Section 301 tariffs make more permanent,” she said.